| Message ID | 20180516154233.21457-11-sjg@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Alexander Graf |
| Headers | show |
| Series | efi: Enable basic sandbox support for EFI loader | expand |
On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: > Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are > for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within > sandbox anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > --- > > Changes in v4: None > Changes in v3: None > Changes in v2: None > > lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c > index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c > @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); > #include <asm/elf.h> > #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE > #define R_MASK 0xffULL > +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) Alex > +#define R_RELATIVE 8 > +#define R_MASK 0xffffffffULL > #else > #error Need to add relocation awareness > #endif >
Hi Alex, On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > > On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are >> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within >> sandbox anyway. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> Changes in v4: None >> Changes in v3: None >> Changes in v2: None >> >> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 >> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); >> #include <asm/elf.h> >> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE >> #define R_MASK 0xffULL >> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) > > Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on > defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it. Regards, Simon
On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are >>> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within >>> sandbox anyway. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v4: None >>> Changes in v3: None >>> Changes in v2: None >>> >>> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 >>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); >>> #include <asm/elf.h> >>> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE >>> #define R_MASK 0xffULL >>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >> >> Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on >> defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) > > Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add > support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it. What would keep people from trying it? Alex
Hi Alex, On 11 June 2018 at 23:44, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: > > > On 12.06.18 07:27, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> On 24 May 2018 at 06:34, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16.05.18 17:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are >>>> for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within >>>> sandbox anyway. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v4: None >>>> Changes in v3: None >>>> Changes in v2: None >>>> >>>> lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c >>>> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); >>>> #include <asm/elf.h> >>>> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE >>>> #define R_MASK 0xffULL >>>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >>> >>> Same comment applies here, just change the ifdef above to match on >>> defined(__x86_64__) && defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) >> >> Yes, understood, same comment as on the other patch. We can always add >> support for ARM, etc. when people can try it and test it. > > What would keep people from trying it? Time and inclination, most likely. Regards, Simon
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c index 52f1301d75b..ac02f64d967 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static efi_status_t __efi_runtime EFIAPI efi_invalid_parameter(void); #include <asm/elf.h> #define R_RELATIVE R_386_RELATIVE #define R_MASK 0xffULL +#elif defined(CONFIG_SANDBOX) +#define R_RELATIVE 8 +#define R_MASK 0xffffffffULL #else #error Need to add relocation awareness #endif
Add these so that we can build the EFI loader for sandbox. The values are for x86_64 so potentially bogus. But we don't support relocation within sandbox anyway. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> --- Changes in v4: None Changes in v3: None Changes in v2: None lib/efi_loader/efi_runtime.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)